But my other DM said I could...

So this happened at our table the other day and I was wondering how common this is.

One of the players was describing his action and the DM informed him of the DC. The player shot back with, "my other 5e DM said I could do this automatically cause I am a rogue the first time we played." Well, the player failed the roll and spent the rest of the game not being a happy camper. And that killed our game.

I get that the player should not be so childish. But with the current rules being so geared towards DM approval, this seems like it could be a common problem.
Yep, get ready for a pretty heavy backlash for pointing out this shortcoming of the new system. Some people just will refuse to see it as a problem. They'll recommend complicated work-arounds, say the player or the DM is bad and there's nothing you can do about bad players or DMs, or they'll just deny that it was really a problem for you. Anything to avoid having to confront the problems of the DM as demigod direction of DDN.

 

"What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine." - Lesp

So this happened at our table the other day and I was wondering how common this is. One of the players was describing his action and the DM informed him of the DC. The player shot back with, "my other 5e DM said I could do this automatically cause I am a rogue the first time we played." Well, the player failed the roll and spent the rest of the game not being a happy camper. And that killed our game. I get that the player should not be so childish. But with the current rules being so geared towards DM approval, this seems like it could be a common problem.



I agree.  We're playing D&D, not 'Mother May I'.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
[sarcasm]Quit being a bad DM and just let the player do whatever they want. A good DM can...[/sarcasm]

But seriously its a real problem and needs to be taken care of...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
It's certainly hard to plan out turns when you need DM's approval for basic things. Also, there's the potential for favortism.
Again with the targeted attacks at DMs?

How has setting DCs ever not been the DMs discretion?

I know we don't agree guys but can you stop with the targeted insults?

I could list all of the insulting terms for your playstyle but honestly I don't want to add to this fire.

Please at least be respectful when voicing your opinion on an issue that has occurred in every system and yes I have encountered it in 4th and yes it was the same DM I played under in 3.5 and when he Gamemastered for other non DnD systems. The problem is when players don't understand the rules to begin with and then cross from one DM to another.

It happens, it shouldn't, it is unfortunate.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

Again with the targeted attacks at DMs? How has setting DCs ever not been the DMs discretion? I know we don't agree guys but can you stop with the targeted insults? I could list all of the insulting terms for your playstyle but honestly I don't want to add to this fire. Please at least be respectful when voicing your opinion on an issue that has occurred in every system and yes I have encountered it in 4th and yes it was the same DM I played under in 3.5 and when he Gamemastered for other non DnD systems. The problem is when players don't understand the rules to begin with and then cross from one DM to another. It happens, it shouldn't, it is unfortunate.



4E had a chart of expected DCs by level. You were allowed to throw challenges that were above or below those DCs but you at least knew where to aim. In 5E you have all of the problems of 3.xE and none of the solutions.

Yeah, also you might want to read the OP. He said he played under 2 DMs for the play test and he tried something under one DM who said it was an automatic success, when he tried the exact same thing under a new DM, the DM made him roll for it, he failed and it ruined the rest of the session for you.

Its called getting your expectations up and then dashing them, and really its the developers fault because they tell the DM to guess whether something is an auto-success or whether the player should roll for it, or whether its an auto-fail, without any real guidance. That is the problem we are pointing to with 5E.

Can you imagine an RPGA tournament where points are awarded for completing objectives. I can see the mess these rules would make to that. Where each DM is allowed to arbitrate whether an action can be performed based on personal opinion. I mean a good, fair, clever DM would do fine, but the larger group of mediocre, new, mistake prone, etc... DMs would royally mess it up...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
The 3.x system for skills had a bit of a scaling issue. We found a repeat of that in the COMBAT system of 4e, where it was a scramble to keep your hit rate even with monster defenses. While the DCs should by all means have been relatively static, the result was, instead, more or less "difficulty is Eleven plus your level", and so things like thieves had to keep their skills all capped to keep up, or became useless. Honestly that's not much different, given how the system was actually explained, than 4th's at all, its just that characters in 4th compensate by auto-scaling with level on their skills [all of them, evenly...]

OP: Your game, Your rules. On the spot, your judgement stands, and if they start bickering, roll on the smartass-smackdown-table, withold EPs, or otherwise punish them. They'll get the message soon enough.

AFTER game, you can listen to an argument, long as he's not throwing a four year old's tantrum about it, on how the other ruling went: Maybe the other GM DID have a very good idea or judgement about it. He COULD be better at math than you are too. OR you'll realise that other GM, after carefully listening, was one of those sappy let'em-do-whatever types that had the artifacts and praise flowing like the entire game was to be televised on Disney Jr.

Only one way to find out. But while the game's running, at the table, "but my other GM said I could" oughta be a straight-up smackdown.
Lokaire, ( not chastising I promise).

Did you read the DM guidelines portion of the packet ?

It gives examples of DCs and how to apply ads/disads.

They set a max DC.

It's actually fairly clear. If a DM rules differently it isn't for a lack of info.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

According to the rule a check auto succeeds if your relevant stat is 5 higher than the DC.

It gives DCs for things like picking locks, balancing, etc.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

4E had a chart of expected DCs by level. You were allowed to throw challenges that were above or below those DCs but you at least knew where to aim. In 5E you have all of the problems of 3.xE and none of the solutions.



Comparing a system that is not only complete, but also has been played for the past few years, to the playtest materials is disingenious, in my opinion.

Yeah, also you might want to read the OP. He said he played under 2 DMs for the play test and he tried something under one DM who said it was an automatic success, when he tried the exact same thing under a new DM, the DM made him roll for it, he failed and it ruined the rest of the session for you.

Its called getting your expectations up and then dashing them, and really its the developers fault because they tell the DM to guess whether something is an auto-success or whether the player should roll for it, or whether its an auto-fail, without any real guidance. That is the problem we are pointing to with 5E.



If you're going to complain about something, complaining about things that simply don't exist doesn't help your position. No guidelines? How about the first page of the DM Guidelines, under "When To Use the Dice"? Hell, the first three pages of the DM Guidelines, plus a little bit of the fourth page, are all about checks - how to set DC's, what those DC's might be, when to use the dice or not, and so on. And that's not even counting the fact that for many character actions, the DC's are already set (for both PC's and monsters - a lot of this stuff has already been noted on the character sheet or in the monster write up).

Oh, and then pages 6-9 are all about checks, and DC's and so on. So, two-thirds of the DM Guidelines are all about exactly what you just said there were no guidelines for....as such, I think that argument has fallen flat on its face, I'm afraid.


For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.

I had the oppasite situation. We had a player leave at 9:30 to work the overnight, and a late player come in after getting out at 9, so we mid test switched who is playing out theif.


Ken (player 1) spent most of the night searching, scouting, and trap testing. I ruled his stealth+dex let him auto scout.


Kurt (Player 2) was asked to scout, and said "F*&$ no I have an 8 wis, I can't notice anything...and no perception skills"     He refused to scout, or even try looking for traps.

Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?

OP: Your game, Your rules. On the spot, your judgement stands, and if they start bickering, roll on the smartass-smackdown-table, withold EPs, or otherwise punish them. They'll get the message soon enough.



Don't forget the players who keep track of every ruling you make (never play with people who know shorthand), and compare you not to the *other* DM, but to *yourself*.  Not a lot of room to hide behind there, and if you try to hand-wave too much, the group will vote to drop D&D and go back to Savage Worlds (or whatever else).  Those votes sure won't help Wizards' profitability.

4E had a chart of expected DCs by level. You were allowed to throw challenges that were above or below those DCs but you at least knew where to aim. In 5E you have all of the problems of 3.xE and none of the solutions.



Wrong, see "Assign a DC," page 2 of the DM guidelines for the D&D Next playtest, and "Table 4-3: Difficulty Class Examples," page 64 of the 3.5 Player's Handbook.


Yeah, also you might want to read the OP. He said he played under 2 DMs for the play test and he tried something under one DM who said it was an automatic success, when he tried the exact same thing under a new DM, the DM made him roll for it, he failed and it ruined the rest of the session for you.



And he gave absolutely no details on it, and everyone's only jumping to the conclusion that it was the DC issue (what was the action? what was the DC? what rogue ability allowed him to do it automatically last time?).  The second DM could have forgotten or not known about the Rogue's Skill Mastery ability or the "stats 5 points over automatically win," or the first DM could have been overgenerous in overbroadly applying either of those rules.


Its called getting your expectations up and then dashing them, and really its the developers fault because they tell the DM to guess whether something is an auto-success or whether the player should roll for it, or whether its an auto-fail, without any real guidance. That is the problem we are pointing to with 5E.



Wrong, see "Ability thresholds" under "Options for Checks," page 3 of the DM guidelines.  No rules for automatic failures exist, please do not make up fictitious problems.


Can you imagine an RPGA tournament where points are awarded for completing objectives. I can see the mess these rules would make to that. Where each DM is allowed to arbitrate whether an action can be performed based on personal opinion. I mean a good, fair, clever DM would do fine, but the larger group of mediocre, new, mistake prone, etc... DMs would royally mess it up...



Because as we all know, the RPGA doesn't use canned adventures with clear-cut rules of what can or cannot be done to prevent that from happening.  Wait, that's the opposite of what the RPGA does, isn't it?
Give me the exact situation from both games with all factors involved an then we can compare the rulings.

Until then you are targeting the role of the DM in DnD with very disrespectful an uninformed assumptions.

If you want to discuss the mechanical implications of this play test then discuss the mechanics. If you want to go around DM bashing it is my understanding that you have one of those already and you should take your frustrations to his table instead of insulting strangers based on a story that presented few facts and some bad personal experiences.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

Give me the exact situation from both games with all factors involved an then we can compare the rulings. Until then you are targeting the role of the DM in DnD with very disrespectful an uninformed assumptions. If you want to discuss the mechanical implications of this play test then discuss the mechanics. If you want to go around DM bashing it is my understanding that you have one of those already and you should take your frustrations to his table instead of insulting strangers based on a story that presented few facts and some bad personal experiences.



It is not going around just DM bashing when leaving so much to Fiat does cause problems for a lot of groups. I've seen numerous groups with numerous games (praticularly Savage Worlds,  Fate and Mutants and Masterminds 3rd and 4th editions) with this problem, its not isolated. Once again people who have not had this problem themselves are refusing to accept its legitmacy because its not their problem. Not everyone has a lot of choice of who their DM is and not every DM can be trusted with a huge Fiat load for any number of reasons. Many of those reasons are not personal attacks either, some people just do not have good enough memories to make consistant rulings good intentions or not.
In my games players have always been Exceptional individuals, not Exceptions to the internal logic of the game world.
Santa,

The thing is that I have had those experiences. The things that always brought the largest divide and caused trouble at the table were overruling the existing material.

As a DM who does his best to work with my players I find this fallback to "DM may I" (wich is insulting) to be a gut reaction that is not addressing the rules.

There is so much of what is being asked for in the DM packet.

These descriptions on how to judge have traditionally rested there.

A player can read this info to understand it.

If you don't present anything mechanical and just assume abuse you fall into a category of player that many DMs will not welcome at their table.

The DMs role is essential and it is split second gut reactions that disregard the info presented to the DM that also lead to misunderstanding at the table.

Don't be the player version of what you despise so much.

Take the time to learn the rules and to understand the exact nature of a ruling before passing judgement.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

My name is Kitton and I am advocating poor DM behavior and blaming the players for having the problem not the system for causing it.

Fixed that for you.

So apparently, letting a whiny player argue the game to a grinding halt because his other GM may or may not have interpreted the rules in a different fashion, or allowed him [possibly in a one-off manner] to do something that my not apply now, as opposed to keeping the game flowing with quick judgement calls, and keeping control over the more self-entitled players, is the system's fault, and a good GM would let himself get trampled no matter what that does to the campaign or other players.

 Instead, ya know of making a judgement now with the authority of being the one running the bloody game, shutting up the whiner if its bad enough a local manchild needs a time-out or punishment without the threats exiting the game [affecting his character, not his face met by your chair], and discussing things in a civilised manner after the game when tensions have cooled off, which is what I was suggesting.

Boy have we ever been doing it wrong. I should totally put my head under our munchkin's boot.
Santa, The thing is that I have had those experiences. The things that always brought the largest divide and caused trouble at the table were overruling the existing material. As a DM who does his best to work with my players I find this fallback to "DM may I" (wich is insulting) to be a gut reaction that is not addressing the rules. There is so much of what is being asked for in the DM packet. These descriptions on how to judge have traditionally rested there. A player can read this info to understand it. If you don't present anything mechanical and just assume abuse you fall into a category of player that many DMs will not welcome at their table. The DMs role is essential and it is split second gut reactions that disregard the info presented to the DM that also lead to misunderstanding at the table. Don't be the player version of what you despise so much. Take the time to learn the rules and to understand the exact nature of a ruling before passing judgement.



I am not a player at all though, I am a DM and I cannot present you with mechanics that are causing this problem because WotC has flat out not included enough mechanics for me to point it, it is the lack of defined mechanics that is causing this problem.

In my games players have always been Exceptional individuals, not Exceptions to the internal logic of the game world.
Quoted from the DM guidelines:

"The Rules aren't in charge. You, the DM, are the one in charge of the game."

When I join a game I hold no reservations that I am entitled to do anything that some other dude let me do in his totally different game. I believe each game has its own, unique set of parameters set by the DM. To get pissed off that I cant do something not clearly defined anyway seems absurd to me!

I'm glad this thread was starte because I honestly had no idea this was ever an issue anywhere. I don't agree with the response's delivery in the form of flaming and targeted attacks against excessive hand-waiving DMs, but you can't have everything.

...just my 2cp

Chillin' like a villain.

My name is Kitton and I am advocating poor DM behavior and blaming the players for having the problem not the system for causing it.

Fixed that for you.

So apparently, letting a whiny player argue the game to a grinding halt because his other GM may or may not have interpreted the rules in a different fashion, or allowed him [possibly in a one-off manner] to do something that my not apply now, as opposed to keeping the game flowing with quick judgement calls, and keeping control over the more self-entitled players, is the system's fault, and a good GM would let himself get trampled no matter what that does to the campaign or other players.

 Instead, ya know of making a judgement now with the authority of being the one running the bloody game, shutting up the whiner if its bad enough a local manchild needs a time-out or punishment without the threats exiting the game [affecting his character, not his face met by your chair], and discussing things in a civilised manner after the game when tensions have cooled off, which is what I was suggesting.

Boy have we ever been doing it wrong. I should totally put my head under our munchkin's boot.



I'm completely with you on this. Quite frankly, I don't give a rat's nethers what another DM let someone do. If I don't think it flies at my table, it doesn't fly. And if a player is going to be disruptive about it, I don't need him at my table either, and he's free to go find another group. My current general gaming group has 17 people in it, and that's not counting other folks that will occasionally come play. Now, we don't have all 17 in the same game (unless they all want to LARP maybe; no tabletop game can comfortably handle that many bodies I don't think), but it does mean that I don't have to go around begging for players. Not everyone has that situation, and I understand that, but at least in my case, I have no problem doing that. Not that I'd have a problem anyway - I'd rather have no game than a game with bad players in it.

That all said, I am not the sort of DM that tells his players "no" all the time. I'm a big proponent of the "yes, and..." game. I will tell them no on occasion, when the situation calls for it, but those are fairly rare.

For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.

Quoted from the DM guidelines: "The Rules aren't in charge. You, the DM, are the one in charge of the game." When I join a game I hold no reservations that I am entitled to do anything that some other dude let me do in his totally different game. I believe each game has its own, unique set of parameters set by the DM. To get pissed off that I cant do something not clearly defined anyway seems absurd to me! I'm glad this thread was starte because I honestly had no idea this was ever an issue anywhere. I don't agree with the response's delivery in the form of flaming and targeted attacks against excessive hand-waiving DMs, but you can't have everything. ...just my 2cp



The issues in question have more to do with the following the general entitlement on the part of players: 

A) DM being final word or not people like to act based on mutually share assumption. Yes a DM has the right to go against the book but in general they wont and it allows the players to do what they want without having to stop and question it constantly. They can act as naturally as their character would. This just makes the game run more smoothly, without clearly defined rules, limits and likelihoods of success at certain things how can someone think like their character if the world that character lives in behaves arbitrarily?

B) People don't like acting on a FAIR assumption and being told at the last second "No" when in all likelihood they would have done things very differently leading up to that point if they knew they couldn't. Its no fun for the person and once again it creates a disconnect between the character and the player. From an in character perspective a person living in the game world, an adventurer no less should have an idea of the way things work. When they can't know these things because it is left up to the DM to ad hoc how can you think and act in character if they cant make any assumptions that someone in the game world would know definitively?

 
In my games players have always been Exceptional individuals, not Exceptions to the internal logic of the game world.
I don't know why but having a player who will crash the entire night just for something like this is quite problematic. I don't think it is the system which is at fault but probably just a misunderstanding of the rules by one or another DM, or just a different point of view on the action played.

When you play with one DM, it sure won't be like with another because they are not identical robots with rules hard coded in their brains. They sometimes have to take decisions with guts because they don't want to delve into the rules and loose tension.

From what I understand of this situation, it seems that this player in particular seems to be easy to upset. Maybe should he be reminded the rule n°0. Players should never hijack a game this way. Players can sure help the DM if he doesn't remember a rule, but they can't force him to rule the same an another one ruled just because it was more beneficial to them.
My name is Kitton and I am advocating poor DM behavior and blaming the players for having the problem not the system for causing it.

Fixed that for you.

So apparently, letting a whiny player argue the game to a grinding halt because his other GM may or may not have interpreted the rules in a different fashion, or allowed him [possibly in a one-off manner] to do something that my not apply now, as opposed to keeping the game flowing with quick judgement calls, and keeping control over the more self-entitled players, is the system's fault, and a good GM would let himself get trampled no matter what that does to the campaign or other players.

 Instead, ya know of making a judgement now with the authority of being the one running the bloody game, shutting up the whiner if its bad enough a local manchild needs a time-out or punishment without the threats exiting the game [affecting his character, not his face met by your chair], and discussing things in a civilised manner after the game when tensions have cooled off, which is what I was suggesting.

Boy have we ever been doing it wrong. I should totally put my head under our munchkin's boot.



I'm completely with you on this. Quite frankly, I don't give a rat's nethers what another DM let someone do. If I don't think it flies at my table, it doesn't fly. And if a player is going to be disruptive about it, I don't need him at my table either, and he's free to go find another group. My current general gaming group has 17 people in it, and that's not counting other folks that will occasionally come play. Now, we don't have all 17 in the same game (unless they all want to LARP maybe; no tabletop game can comfortably handle that many bodies I don't think), but it does mean that I don't have to go around begging for players. Not everyone has that situation, and I understand that, but at least in my case, I have no problem doing that. Not that I'd have a problem anyway - I'd rather have no game than a game with bad players in it.

That all said, I am not the sort of DM that tells his players "no" all the time. I'm a big proponent of the "yes, and..." game. I will tell them no on occasion, when the situation calls for it, but those are fairly rare.




Both of you are being rediculous. Phried said nothing like that. The issue is when a DM is not making consistent judgment calls and it is effecting play negatively. If the DM is forced to give up consistence to keep the game moving at a decent pace then maybe they are not qualified to be doing the job. This becomes the systems fault because it could have had more defined rules and ecouraged DMs to not stray from them so players have a solid base from which to make assumptions on so they can behave like a rational character who is part of the game world, not a person constantly having the worry their DM will see things their way to get anything done. The fact that Fighters absolutely need the DM to see things their way to do anything beyond "I hit them" and Wizards have clearly defined abilities only makes this worse.
In my games players have always been Exceptional individuals, not Exceptions to the internal logic of the game world.
The player was wrong.  Even if the DM made a bad ruling the player was wrong.  In the end the DM ruling is final.  Any player who would sulk over a DM ruling is acting way beyond childest. 

No system can fix a whining brat and shouldn't be forced to.  That is what the DM is for.


Both of you are being rediculous. Phried said nothing like that. The issue is when a DM is not making consistent judgment calls and it is effecting play negatively. If the DM is forced to give up consistence to keep the game moving at a decent pace then maybe they are not qualified to be doing the job. This becomes the systems fault because it could have had more defined rules and ecouraged DMs to not stray from them so players have a solid base from which to make assumptions on so they can behave like a rational character who is part of the game world, not a person constantly having the worry their DM will see things their way to get anything done. The fact that Fighters absolutely need the DM to see things their way to do anything beyond "I hit them" and Wizards have clearly defined abilities only makes this worse.



First off, a small nitpick - the word is "ridiculous," not "rediculous." Why in the hell everyone has started misspelling that word lately is beyond me. Anyway, back to the point...

Given that I (and clearly other people) have never had this problem, with this system or any other system that allows for "DM Fiat," I submit that the fault does not lie with the system at all. If it did, there would be a more consistant failing amongst more DM's.

Furthermore, there has been the assertion a number of times in this thread that the playtest materials don't give any guidelines in this regard. That is demonstrably false, as I already pointed out, given that 2/3 of the DM Guidelines packet concerns itself with the very topic at hand.

Taking all this in mind, I conclude that the system is not at fault - rather, with these general sorts of situations, it seems to me that the problem lies in differing sets of expectations (easily solved by the DM and player talking civilly about the situation *after game*), and/or a DM that didn't bother to read the literature provided.

Neither of those things are the system's fault. The adage about leading a horse to water seems to fit here, I should think.

For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.



Both of you are being rediculous. Phried said nothing like that. The issue is when a DM is not making consistent judgment calls and it is effecting play negatively. If the DM is forced to give up consistence to keep the game moving at a decent pace then maybe they are not qualified to be doing the job. This becomes the systems fault because it could have had more defined rules and ecouraged DMs to not stray from them so players have a solid base from which to make assumptions on so they can behave like a rational character who is part of the game world, not a person constantly having the worry their DM will see things their way to get anything done. The fact that Fighters absolutely need the DM to see things their way to do anything beyond "I hit them" and Wizards have clearly defined abilities only makes this worse.



First off, a small nitpick - the word is "ridiculous," not "rediculous." Why in the hell everyone has started misspelling that word lately is beyond me. Anyway, back to the point...

Given that I (and clearly other people) have never had this problem, with this system or any other system that allows for "DM Fiat," I submit that the fault does not lie with the system at all. If it did, there would be a more consistant failing amongst more DM's.

Furthermore, there has been the assertion a number of times in this thread that the playtest materials don't give any guidelines in this regard. That is demonstrably false, as I already pointed out, given that 2/3 of the DM Guidelines packet concerns itself with the very topic at hand.

Taking all this in mind, I conclude that the system is not at fault - rather, with these general sorts of situations, it seems to me that the problem lies in differing sets of expectations (easily solved by the DM and player talking civilly about the situation *after game*), and/or a DM that didn't bother to read the literature provided.

Neither of those things are the system's fault. The adage about leading a horse to water seems to fit here, I should think.




You seem to be working on the false assumpsion that I think those guidelines are enough. You see I always GM and its been that way for years. I've seen other people GM and the vast majority are incompetent and over the years have had at 8 players leave the campaigns they were in due to poor GMing to join mine and you know what? I am not a permissive GM who gives players whatever they what, I have very strict guidelines for what types of characters are appropriate the campaigns I have in mind. They can be a part of it or not if they don't like the premise. I am deadly and it is not uncommon for multiple near deaths per session though none are ever arbitrary, this is actually less of a case in D&D because how prevalent healing magic is but I don't always run D&D. I have game table etiquette standards that quite frankly I have thrown players out for not living up to, if rest at the table on a regular basis you're out, if you don't look at someone's face when they are speaking and thus miss social cues on a regular basis you're out, if you are constantly contriving ways for your character to be the one to solve a problem when its is painly obvious that another party member can do it more effectively in a  non-contrived way just to be in charge and set the pace of events you're out after your first warning if it persists. All of that and I have never been short on players for a 5 party and do you know why? Obviously you don't. It is because I solve problems before they happen. I don't wait until the end of sessions to solve disputes, I don't even allow them to happen by being completely up front about every single thing before the campaign even starts. I say "You can attempt anything the rules say you can attempt and if you succeed by RAW I will never stop it, ever. The only way to effectively roleplay is to be as one with your character and you can only do this if the rules function as physics not my guidelines and you can make assumptions about things that realistically a person living in the game world would simply know. As you are not a person in that world with access street level knowledge of that world you are handicapped so the best thing that I can do to resolve  this is say everything in the books true all the time. If X npc lives here, works there and hangs out at some place guess what they do, go find them if you think it will help. Lone Star sure loves hunting down criminals and brutalizing them in future Seattle, something you are and a place you happen to be! Their capabilities as of the start of the campaign are listed right here in the book, you know it, I know it and I will never contradict it either for your benefit or detriment because that way we never waste time on the issue again. Ad infinitum for everything about every system I have ever ran." 

Doing anything less than that is merely an admission of your own inability to provide your players with agency.
In my games players have always been Exceptional individuals, not Exceptions to the internal logic of the game world.

Doing anything less than that is merely an admission of your own inability to provide your players with agency.



And you seem to be functioning on two false assumptions:

1) That I don't give my players plenty of agency. Are you familiar with the "yes, and..." style of improvisational theatre? If not, that may be the disconnect there. We don't need a metric ton of rules for every situation because not only is that ridiculous, but for the most part, what folks want to do is reasonable. "I want to look around for a rock to throw and bounce off the sentry's head to get his attention." "Well, given that you're in a cave/forest/other location where pebbles and rocks would logically be, sure, no problem. You can easily find a rock to throw." Only in situations where it would be foolhardy do I say no. I give the players plenty of agency to help define our shared (key word, that) imaginative space.

2) That putting a whole bunch of words in bold makes your point any more forceful. I assure you, I can read the words you're saying without the bold.

Honestly, I think the only dissimilar part we have here is the amount of rules we prefer to have in our game books, nothing more.

For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.


Doing anything less than that is merely an admission of your own inability to provide your players with agency.



And you seem to be functioning on two false assumptions:

1) That I don't give my players plenty of agency. Are you familiar with the "yes, and..." style of improvisational theatre? If not, that may be the disconnect there. We don't need a metric ton of rules for every situation because not only is that ridiculous, but for the most part, what folks want to do is reasonable. "I want to look around for a rock to throw and bounce off the sentry's head to get his attention." "Well, given that you're in a cave/forest/other location where pebbles and rocks would logically be, sure, no problem. You can easily find a rock to throw." Only in situations where it would be foolhardy do I say no. I give the players plenty of agency to help define our shared (key word, that) imaginative space.

2) That putting a whole bunch of words in bold makes your point any more forceful. I assure you, I can read the words you're saying without the bold.

Honestly, I think the only dissimilar part we have here is the amount of rules we prefer to have in our game books, nothing more.




Also the amount of contempt we hold for other people. I'm sure I hold a lot more contempt. 
In my games players have always been Exceptional individuals, not Exceptions to the internal logic of the game world.
Both of you are being rediculous. Phried said nothing like that

My name is Kitton and I am advocating poor DM behavior and blaming the players for having the problem not the system for causing it.

Actually, it was effectively said. That it appears to have been deleted now does not really change that its what I/[we?] were responding to. It seems to be gone now, for whatever reason.

The way I see it there's two ways 'other gm' comes up.
"Alright, I wanna try this; under the rules OtherGM had ruled this an appropriate interpretation of the rules on This ability, is that alright?"
This is polite and acceptable up to that point. He's explaining where he got the idea from, that it was fine last time, and is asking if the GM here is ruling the same way. The GM may have to look, or may approve this time and look it up later, or may say "not this time but I'll look it up afterwards" or "no, we've dealt with this before at the table and ruled otherwise'.

But the situation the opening poster gave us is... "the other one". The player tried to get a freebie, did an appeal to [a different] authority when he was told he'd need to roll a check, and proceeded to be a poor member of the table for the remainder of the evening, to the point where it seems the session was soured for everyone. That's exactly the kind of attitude that needs some disciplining.

Punishment need not be that unamusing for everyone involved [except perhaps the offending player] though. Hack's "Smartass Smackdown Table" had some things like "A powerful NPC falls in unnatural love with the PC" [note; unnatural was referring to what they've in mind for the PC, not that they're under a charm effect].

 The rest of the party, hell perhaps even the player himself if he behaves, got to have great fun having to deal with the king's concubine deciding the 'rogue' would be the perfect model for her 'lonely duchess' brand 'marital aid statue gardens', and the only thing preventing his lovely form from forever gracing her bedroom is that annoying issue of not currently being petrified...
Of course none of us really know how the final version of DDN will turn out, but the current rules and the GM guidelines feel very much to me like the way we used to run our AD&D games.

My brother and I both were GMs in those days. We also both played in another GM's game. At one point at about level 10 or so, in the other GM's game, my brother's monk gained a wish from a "Deck of Many Things." He wished to be ambidextrous. That was granted, and from that point on he was given double attacks for every single attack a normal monk would have.

After some time that campaign ended and he wanted to bring his  monk into a campaign I was running. Having played in the same campaign with his ambidextrous monk, I knew exactly how totally overpowered the monk was, and so I said the monk could play, but that being "ambidextrous" would not allow him to double his number of attacks per round. (At that time I think he was making five attacks per round, and my rules would have changed that to something like 7 attacks every 2 rounds, the attack rules were weird back then, with a standard 12th level monk getting 5 attacks per 2 rounds, meaning two attacks on one round and three attacks on the next round).

We almost came to blows over that. (We were younger then...) I held my ground and he ended up rolling another character up and we had a great time, but I was not going to allow his double-attacking monk into my campaign.

I think this sort of thing is going to become pretty common in DDN if the rules don't get more consistent and clear. 
It would be interesting to know which of the players here still plays fourth and which do not.

I personally stopped playing 4th altogether because of this very thing.  Everything was too defined.  As a DM I felt I was simply moderating a boardgame.  Without the ability to come up with interesting things on the fly, I wasn't able to enjoy myself.  Having the rules dictacted to you appeals to some people, but I think a lot of people share my opinion.  

Loose rules are a legitimate feature.  This is a role-playing game, not a board game.  At the end of the day the DM has the "Power of God" to destroy the party.  There is no reason he can't have the power to choose whatever difficulty he thinks it appropriate and will make the game interesting and fun for everyone at the table.  Doesn't mean everyone will always agree, but there are far more players than DMs, so I say do whatever makes the DM happy. 
Sherman,

Agree that I have more fun playing when things fall outside the rules. It's like a logic puzzle to assemble the rules that might best guide you combined with a twist of storytelling to explain how it works then it's suspense waiting to see if the player can pull off the roll so that you get to help bring his/her idea to life.

Good times.

A happy DM is a better DM true but he likewise should not abuse the power and should watch the players for cues that they need a piece of the action.

I find that nothing makes for a better story than allowing a players background to gain real estate in your persistent world.

That and making it clear how rediculous an idea is before they put their build there or before they try that jump that requires a nat 20 for success.

Letting someone roll this anyway sometimes results in character death but at others results in the most amazing game night you ever ran.

Anyhow, I digress. Rules vs. DM is really an illusion anyway.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

Agree that I have more fun playing when things fall outside the rules... Rules vs. DM is really an illusion anyway.

Completely agree.  There is no reason you can't say, "This is a DC 17 task, do you still want to attempt it?"  I'm not suggesting that everything be random, but I am saying that codifying every detail makes for a far duller game.
It is really pointless to see all these threads talking about "role play" vs "mechanics" when I've yet to see any discussion of the very definition of the words "role play" that doesn't disintegrate into arguments of "badwrongfun" from one side or another.

A. Some people view "role playing" as faithfully acting out their character's backstory and mechanics.
B. Some people view "role playing" as going beyond the limitations of their character's backstory and mechanics. 
C. Some people view "role playing" as simply making sh*t up on the fly.
D. Some people view "role playing" as adopting mannerisms, accents and personalities as if acting in a play.

Some of these defintions overlap, but some are actually in opposition. "Making sh*t up" and "faithfully acting out backstory and mechanics" are such different concepts that the advocates of each are as likely to get into nerd rages as the edition wars themselves will incite.

I play 4e. I role play my character hard in 4e. 4e as a game system not only encourages role playing  in the "A" sense, but discourages role playing in the "B" sense.  However, it doesn't encourage or discourage role playing in the "C" sense. It only creates boundaries for when that is allowed.

For example, my 4e ranger has a daily power called "Cascade of Blades", which allows up to five attacks in a round if they all hit. He also has a feat which allows him to push a character one square on a melee hit, and to shift one square into a space adjacent. So in effect with cascade of blades he can pound an enemy five squares across the battlefield, potentially driving him off a cliff. That's what the mechanics allow him to do. But when I use that power I role play the heck out of it. In the "C" sense, someone might want to "role play" that same thing but without any mechanical support for the ability. Most GMs would say "uh, no." if a character didn't have that mechanical ability but wanted to hit an enemy five times and drive them across the field and over a cliff. So in that sense 4e provides an incredibly rich role-playing environment since every power, feat, ability or magic item effect allows the player to have a specific mechanical effect that they can then dramatize however they want with full knowledge that the GM will not have any reason to say "no, you can't do that."

But this very thing will be pointed to by the "B" and "C" style role players as some sort of role playing limitation. "What if you wanted to do something else?" The "A" style role player will say "well, I've got other mechanical abilities I could do instead." But to the "B" and "C" role players that's still too limiting.

I tend to be more of an "A" style role player. And that didn't start with 4e, in fact I think the 4e game designers view "role playing" in that way and as such did their best to provide an extremely rich toolkit of mechanical effects and abilities that could be role played for dramatic and cinematic effect. So when people say "4e doesn't support role playing" people like me shake our heads and say "man, you are so, totally wrong."

The problem with "B" and "C" type role players is that they can create balance or believability problems for the GM and other players. A character who dump-statted charisma but who routinely performs as the party's face through "role playing" is taking advantage of a style of play that encourages the bypassing of mechanical limitations of the character in favor of the acting abilities of the player. "C" type roleplayers create even more potential balance issues by saying "dude, you should allow that because it's just totally awesome cool! What are you some sort of player-hating GM?"

The balance between the styles is very hard to meet.

In my opinion the proper way to "role play" is to follow "A" as much as possible when the character has mechanics which apply. That means the dex-dump-statted fighter should not be the one attempting to leap up on the table, grab the chandelier and swing across the molten lava to land on the back of the flying dragon. However when mechanics are not available to guide play, then "C" style role playing is appropriate, but only within the balance needs of the game as defined by the GM.

4e makes it very easy to do this. The current rules of DDN appear, to me, to give the impression that "B" and "C" style role playing is preferable. And I think that will make the game very hard to GM consistently since every GM will have their own idea of what is "reasonable" in their worlds. That will mean that moving characters from one GM's campaign to another's will likely cause some friction.

I like the idea of making the game more freeform and invoking the imagination. However it is well known in the art world that the best way to free the imagination is to put some constraints in place that force the artist to be creative in the first place. Just "making **** up" is too easy. The real creativeness is revealed from working within constraints and guidelines and creating something awesome anyway.
Brass baboon,

Why shouldn't the Dex dump try such things?

If he's lucky he can succeed within the rules. Note: rules are in place to determine how difficult the described actions are to achieve.

If he is unlucky it can be fun as well if you turn him into a comic relief style character and don't try and punish him too harshly for the failed attempt.

The idea that I can't attempt something even if I'm bad at it is just as big a hamper on gaming as being overly lenient.

The idea isn't to trade characters between campaigns freely without the DM having to look at the sheet. Even in 4e you may have a fast and loose DM handing out extra at wills or allowing odd power trades that don't fit the rules. These are more DM style concerns that mechanics concerns.

Likewise I have seen varied interpretations of 4e powers, some very accurate, others not.

We shouldn't be concentrating on a DM asigning DCs and determining advantage.

We should be concentrating on a way to add 4th style battlefield options in a streamlined core mechanic.

Why can't we meet half way?

Let's drop the individual powers at every level.

Take away the encounter concept and build a set of combat actions that can be resolved as part of an attack in exchange for damage dealt and/or movement lost.

Combat maneuvers:
These actions must be Announced before the attack roll is made.

Stun: reduces all die rolled by 2 categories. Effect lasts 1rnd or 1d4 rnds when using blugeoning weapon Con save vs attack to negate effect damage applies regardless.

Trip: reduces all die rolled by one category Dex save vs attack to negate damage applies regardless of outcome.

Push/pull: reduce damage by one die category, spend 10ft of movement per five foot of target move for non magical attacks you move with the target

Slow: reduce damage by one die category target reduced to 1/2 movement for 1d8 rnds Con vs attack to negate


Not fine tuned by any means but how would you feel about this type of addition to the base combat mechanic?

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

My simple conclusion on this tread:

the DM guide should give plenty of guidence to Dungeon Masters so that 2 dungeonmasters who have read the dmg would come to very simular ways to handel situations.
their conclusions might  not be identical but simular.


4E had a chart of expected DCs by level. You were allowed to throw challenges that were above or below those DCs but you at least knew where to aim. In 5E you have all of the problems of 3.xE and none of the solutions.



Wrong, see "Assign a DC," page 2 of the DM guidelines for the D&D Next playtest, and "Table 4-3: Difficulty Class Examples," page 64 of the 3.5 Player's Handbook.


Yeah, also you might want to read the OP. He said he played under 2 DMs for the play test and he tried something under one DM who said it was an automatic success, when he tried the exact same thing under a new DM, the DM made him roll for it, he failed and it ruined the rest of the session for you.



And he gave absolutely no details on it, and everyone's only jumping to the conclusion that it was the DC issue (what was the action? what was the DC? what rogue ability allowed him to do it automatically last time?).  The second DM could have forgotten or not known about the Rogue's Skill Mastery ability or the "stats 5 points over automatically win," or the first DM could have been overgenerous in overbroadly applying either of those rules.


Its called getting your expectations up and then dashing them, and really its the developers fault because they tell the DM to guess whether something is an auto-success or whether the player should roll for it, or whether its an auto-fail, without any real guidance. That is the problem we are pointing to with 5E.



Wrong, see "Ability thresholds" under "Options for Checks," page 3 of the DM guidelines.  No rules for automatic failures exist, please do not make up fictitious problems.


Can you imagine an RPGA tournament where points are awarded for completing objectives. I can see the mess these rules would make to that. Where each DM is allowed to arbitrate whether an action can be performed based on personal opinion. I mean a good, fair, clever DM would do fine, but the larger group of mediocre, new, mistake prone, etc... DMs would royally mess it up...



Because as we all know, the RPGA doesn't use canned adventures with clear-cut rules of what can or cannot be done to prevent that from happening.  Wait, that's the opposite of what the RPGA does, isn't it?



Yeah, but telling you that something is easy, moderate, difficult, heroic, or impossible, doesn't help anyone without citing specific examples. it doesn't say a wood door is easy, a reinforced wood door is moderate, a thin metal door is difficult, a stone door is heroic, and a magically reinforced stone/steel door is impossible. That's my problem...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
well the new legend and lore article also talks about this.
that dungeon masters will have to learn what are apropriate dc's in this system.
I find the new types of complaints about DnD seem generational.  In this thread there are complaints that the system is weak because 2 different DMs interpreted how to interact with a situation differently and how people don't like how skills don't scale because they've found that their DMs scale DCs against the PCs ranks.

In earlier editions the DM almost never came under scrutiny.  The answer was generally 'if you don't like their style, find a different group' where as now we have calls to DM proof the new edition (wtf?).  DC scaling is symptomatic of particular DMs.  Climbing the same tree at level 1 and level 10 should have the same DC and should just get easier if you put ranks into it.  To do otherwise nulifys the point of progression.

Once again I have to blame WoW.  The pseudo roleplaying without DMs (to a certain extent).
Yeah, but telling you that something is easy, moderate, difficult, heroic, or impossible, doesn't help anyone without citing specific examples. it doesn't say a wood door is easy, a reinforced wood door is moderate, a thin metal door is difficult, a stone door is heroic, and a magically reinforced stone/steel door is impossible. That's my problem...



But when 4e gives the examples, all it does is repeat that chart over and over and over.  Knowledge gives "Common - DC 10", "Expert - 20," "Master - DC 25;" the swim part of Athletics gives "Calm - DC 10" "Rough - DC 15," and "Stormy - DC 20," etc.  It's no different than something at the beginning saying "DC 0 doesn't need a roll unless there's modifiers, DC 5 is easy, DC 10 is average, DC 15 is challenging, DC 20 is hard, DC 25 is extremely hard, add 5 to paragon checks, add 10 to epic checks."
Sign In to post comments